Whaley v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 14 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 18522.,18522. |
| Citation | 374 F.2d 9 |
| Parties | Bernice C. WHALEY, Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Donald H. Whaley, Clayton, Mo., for appellant.
Stephen H. Gilmore, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee. John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., and Richard D. FitzGibbon, Jr., U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., were on the brief.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, BLACKMUN and MEHAFFY, Circuit Judges.
VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge.
This action was brought by claimant, Bernice C. Whaley, against the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Secretary denying claimant's application for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 416(i) and 423.
The District Court for reasons stated in a well-considered opinion — 255 F. Supp. 862 — affirmed the Secretary's decision. This is a timely appeal from such final judgment.
Coverage under the Act is conceded. The dispositive issue before us is whether the District Court erred in its determination that the Secretary was warranted upon the record in finding that the claimant did not establish the degree of disability required by the Act to entitle her to disability benefits.
The standards for review in cases of this kind are well-established and fully developed in our prior cases and need not be repeated here. Brasher v. Celebrezze, 8 Cir., 340 F.2d 413; Celebrezze v. Sutton, 8 Cir., 338 F.2d 417; Celebrezze v. Bolas, 8 Cir., 316 F.2d 498.
We have carefully examined the entire record. It clearly appears that the applicable standards above stated were strictly adhered to by the trial court. We are in full agreement with the trial court's determination that the Secretary's findings have substantial evidentiary support. No purpose will be served in reviewing the extensive evidence in detail. Such evidence is fairly stated and summarized in the decision of the Appeals Council which became the final decision of the Secretary and in the District Court's opinion. The evidence is likewise considered and stated in detail in the original Examiner's report and in the report of the second trial Examiner made after remand. The decision of the District Court is affirmed upon the basis of the findings and reasoning contained in its well-considered opinion.
Prior to the hearing on remand before the Examiner on July 8, 1965, the claimant's disability claim was based upon physical disability. Many doctors examined claimant and their reports appear in the record. While some of such testimony lends support to claimant's claim of physical disability, there is substantial evidence to support a contrary view. Hence, the court was fully warranted in accepting the Secretary's findings and determination that physical disability to the extent required by the Act had not been established.
Claimant first presented a contention of mental disability in the nature of a psychosomatic or psychoneurotic condition at the hearing before the Examiner on July 8, 1965. Such claim is based primarily upon the testimony of Dr. Gagliardo, a qualified psychiatrist who first examined claimant on June 30, 1965, and again examined her on July 6, 1965. He testified that claimant was suffering from a depressive reaction, that she was in need of treatment, and was totally disabled at the time he testified. He further stated that she was having no delusions or hallucinations, that she was oriented in all spheres, that her memory was intact, that her judgment was impaired, that she did not express any suicidal tendencies and did not need hospitalization. He was unable to say when the mental problem developed or became disabling. Included in his testimony is the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunn v. Richardson
...86 (5th Cir. 1966); Gray v. Gardner, 261 F. Supp. 736 (D.S.C.1966); and Whaley v. Gardner, 255 F.Supp. 862 (E.D.Mo.1966), affirmed 374 F.2d 9 (8th Cir. 1967)." ...
-
Lovelace v. Bowen
...curiam); Stillwell v. Cohen, 411 F.2d 574, 575-76 (5th Cir.1969); Whaley v. Gardner, 255 F.Supp. 862, 867 (E.D.Mo.1966), aff'd, 374 F.2d 9, 11 (8th Cir.1967); 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1530(b), 416.930(b) (1985).24 Taylor v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir.1986).25 Id.26 Lovejoy v. Heckler, 7......
-
Qwest Corp. v. Koppendrayer
...a proper evidentiary foundation. However, "administrative agencies are not restricted to rigid rules of evidence," Whaley v. Gardner, 374 F.2d 9, 11 (8th Cir.1967), and Qwest's reliance upon inapposite case law is not applicable to our 8. In addition, Qwest asserts that the adoption of low ......
-
Bean v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Civ. A. No. W-5304.
...report-4 of the Social Security Administration, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1507; Stillwell v. Cohen, 411 F.2d 574 (5th Cir. 1969); Whaley v. Gardner, 374 F.2d 9 (8th Cir. 1967). In addition, the plaintiff has been inflicted with this condition since her youth, but has nonetheless been able to engage i......